communication apprehension and job position a …
TRANSCRIPT
COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AND JOB POSITION
AS VARIABLES AFFECTING JOB SATISFACTION
by
MARTHA PRONGER MATHEWS, B.G.S.
A THESIS
IN
SPEECH COMMUNICATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Approved
Chair Ibfi
U (p, l^J AjULAjU.i.....»^_J
Accented
August, 1983
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For guidance, instruction, concern, and patience, I
am sincerely grateful. To Dr. Bill Jordan for directing
this thesis, to Dr. Bud Wheeless for helping interpret the
statistics, and to Dr. Virginia l^eeless for the concern
and insight, I thank you. To my husband, Kenneth, and
boys Seth and James, your patience has been deeply appre
ciated.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Overview of Job Satisfaction 1
Origins of Job Satisfaction 3
Communication Apprehension 5
Overview of Communication Apprehension 6
Descriptors of Communication Apprehension 7
Effects of High Communication Apprehension 8
Relationship Between Job Satisfaction
and Communication Apprehension . . . . 9
II. METHODS 15
Sample and Procedure 15
Questionnaires and Measurement . . . . 16
Data Analysis 20
Results 21
III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 37
Discussion 37
Conclusions 41
LIST OF REFERENCES 44 APPENDICES 49
111
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5:
TABLE 6
TABLE 7:
TABLE 8:
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
TABLE 12
Orthogonal Transformation Matrix for Job Satisfaction 18
Means and Standard Deviations for all Subjects 22
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 23
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication . . . 24
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication . . . 25
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 26
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Half Split on Frequency of Communication 27
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 31
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 32
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 33
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 34
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Third Split on Frequency of Communication 35
IV
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Although causes of job satisfaction remain a mystery,
the search for answers continues. The purpose of this the
sis is to examine one more variable related to job satis
faction, communication apprehension. Initially, job satis
faction will be overviewed, followed by origins of job sat
isfaction. Next, communication apprehension will be over-
viewed, descriptors of communication apprehension cited,
and effects of high communication apprehension in the work
environment discussed. Finally, the relationship between
job satisfaction and communication apprehension will be delib
erated, followed by a hypothesis statement regarding job sat
isfaction, communication apprehension, and the frequency of
communication required in a person's position.
Overview of Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined by Locke (1976, p. 1300)
as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
the appraisal of one's job or job experience." In 1976
Locke determined that there were over 3000 articles and
dissertations studying the topic of job satisfaction. Using
the same method of prorating, in 1983 this number could rise
to over 4000. VJhy? Why are researchers so concerned with
job satisfaction?
1
2
There are a nimiber of reasons which could ansvzer this
question. Research has shown job satisfaction to be related
to lower absenteeism (Baum & Youngblod, 1975; Day & Hamblin,
1964; Hackman & Lawler, 1971), quantity of production
(Katzell, Barrett & Parker, 1961), increase in productivity
(Alexander & Camden, 1981; Dunnette, Campbell & Jaastad,
1967; King, 1970; White & Mitchell, 1979), mental health,
and satisfaction with life in general (Kornhauser, 1965;
Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). Tne relationship of job sat
isfaction to turnover is supported by many (Baum & Youngblod,
1975; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Lawler & Porter, 1967), while
refuted by others (Katzell et al., 1961). The same contra
dicting stances hold true for performance: Lawler and Porter
(1967) report a positive relationship between job satisfac
tion and performance, but hypothesized that good performance
is merely correlated with job satisfaction. Other studies
have found no significant association between job satisfac
tion and quality of production (Katzell et al., 1961) or a
relationship between skill of employee, job satisfaction,
and quality of production (Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Ronan
(1970, p. 28) summarizes that the relationship between job
satisfaction and job performance is "still rather vague or
in actual dispute." Regardless of these "disputes," the
study of job satisfaction continues.
The study of organizational behavior is interested in
determining what makes individuals satisfied. Even if no
solid tie can be made between job satisfaction and perfor
mance, productivity, and/or profit, Kornhauser's (1965)
findings that job -contentment is related to contentment with
life in general appear to warrant further research in this
area.
Origins of Job Satisfaction^
Most researchers agree that there are two conceptual
groundings regarding job satisfaction: intrinsic (personal)
rewards, and extrinsic (environmental) rewards (Eran, 1966;
Lawler & Porter, 1967; Locke, 1976; O'Reilly & Roberts,
1976; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Some of the intrinsic
rewards that affect how individuals perceive their environ
ments include morale, job involvement, expectancies, needs,
values, and the conflicts between these needs and values;
extrinsic rewards include the work itself, pay, promotion,
verbal recognition, working conditions, and such structural
characteristics as rank, organization tenure, and job ten
ure. Although no one factor can explain the variation in
job satisfaction (Eran, 1966), there appear to be six major
variables contributing to job satisfaction: superior-
subordinate relationships, organizational characteristics,
demographics, task-related characteristics, structural char
acteristics, and personal characteristics.
Superior-subordinate relationships are believed to be
one of the most important variables regarding job satisfaction
4
(Eran, 1966; Falcione, Daly & McCroskey, 1977; Goldhaber,
Yates, Porter, & Lesniak, 1978; Richmond et al., 1982;
Ronan, 1970; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970; Wheeless, Wheeless, &
Howard, 1983). Different aspects of supervisor satisfaction
considered in these studies include Management Communication
Style (Richmond et al., 1982), feedback from supervisors
(Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982), and satisfaction with communi
cating with supervisors (Wheeless et al., 1983). Although «
Goldhaber et al. (1978) contend that an effective relation
ship with the immediate supervisor is the most important
correlate to job satisfaction, they further state that it
is not, alone, sufficient. Therefore, other variables must
be considered.
Organizational characteristics are some of those vari
ables to be considered. These characteristics include repu
tation of the company (Slocum 6e Misshauk, 1970), organiza
tional climate (Maher & Piersol, 1970; LaFollette & Sims,
1975; Payne, Fineman &Wall, 1976; Schneider & Snyder, 1975),
and working conditions (Barnowe, Mangione & Quinn, 1973).
Another variable of job satisfaction may be demographics,
such as education, age, income, and occupation (Goldhaber
et al., 1978; Gould & Hawkins, 1978; Katz, 1978a; Katz,
1978b; Weaver, 1980). Task-related characteristics also
appear to be related to job satisfaction (Goldhaber et al.,
1978; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; O'Brien, 1980; O'Brien &
Stevens, 1981; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970). Some of these
variables include information concerning job-related matters
(Goldhaber et al., 1978), such job characteristics as vari
ety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback (Hackman & Lawler,
1971), and employee's perceptions of the task and the extent
to which the task uses their skills (Caldwell & O'Reilly,
1982; O'Brien, 1980; O'Brien & Stevens, 1981). A fifth vari
able of job satisfaction may be structural characteristics,
such as rank or tenure (Centers & Bugental, 1967; Porter &
Mitchell, 1967; Weaver, 1980). A final variable of job sat
isfaction concerns the worker's own orientations and self-
concepts (Falcione et al., 1977), and it is this area which
will be the major focus of this paper. Specifically, what
is the employee's perception of him or herself, and how does
that self-concept affect job satisfaction within the organi
zation? Furthermore, is a person's self-concept determined
by individual characteristics? The next section of this
paper will examine communication apprehension--one of those
individual characteristics believed to affect self-concept.
Communication Apprehension
Communication apprehension is a relatively new concept
concerning an age-old phenomenon. People who exhibit either
extremely high or low communication apprehension (CA) are
subject to being labeled respectively as a "high CA" or a
"low CA," and many negative and positive connotations are
associated with these respective labels. The purpose of
this section is to provide a general overview of CA: what
it is, what descriptors best fit people with high or low
CA, and what the effects of high CA are to individuals in
the work environment.
Overview of Communication Apprehension
Communication apprehension is defined as "an Individ-
ual's level of fear or anxiety associated with either real
or anticipated communication with another person or persons"
(McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Until so named, the general fear
of communicating had been studied under various names,
including shyness (Zimbardo, 1977), reticence (Phillips,
1968), audience sensitivity (Paivo, 1964), and stage fright
(Clevenger, 1959). Communication apprehension differs from
stage fright or speech anxiety in that it is more general
ized to include apprehension experienced in small groups and
interpersonal contexts as well as in public communication
contexts (Scott & Wheeless, 1977). McCroskey (1982) dif
ferentiates between CA and reticence stating that CA is a
subset of the much broader concept of reticence: Whereas
reticence represents a broad range of communicative incom
petence, CA concerns only that incompetence stemming from
anxiety or fear.
In addition to differentiating CA from other forms of
fear associated with communicating, much attention has been
7
directed to the type of fear CA involves. Spielberger (1966)
maintains that state anxiety is a transitory emotional con
dition that changes over time and varies in intensity, while
trait anxiety is relatively stable to an individual when in
perceived threatening situations. While state CA is common
among all individuals and is considered "normal," trait CA
is not considered a characteristic of well-adjusted individ
uals and threatens 20 percent of students in major univer
sities (McCroskey, 1970). Communication apprehension is
not considered a positive characteristic, and to understand
the relationship concerning CA and job satisfaction, it
would be helpful to know how persons with high or low levels
of CA are perceived.
Descriptors of Communication Apprehension
People with low levels of CA generally present positive
images. McCroskey (1977, p. 84) defines people with low CA
as being "adventurous, extroverted, confident, emotionally
mature individuals with high self-esteem, tolerant of ambi-
buity, and willing or even eager to j:iccept change in their
environment." Conversely, McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and
Cox (1975) found that people with high CA are perceived to
be less sociable, less composed, less competent, less extro
verted, less powerful, and less likely to be seen as opinion
leaders than are people with low CA. Additionally, McCroskey
8
(1977, p. 84) describes a person with high CA as an "intro
verted individual who lacks self-esteem and is resistant to
change, has a low tolerance for ambiguity, and is lacking
in self-control and emotional maturity." In studies con
ducted by McCroskey, Daly, Richmond, and Falcione (1977),
descriptions of persons with low self-esteem were often
similar to those with high CA. One does not, however, neces
sarily cause the other: the presence of one simply pre
dicted the presence of the other. Although the description
of a person with high CA may appear dim, it is important to
remember that most of these people have adjusted to their
lifestyles and that their CA levels have probably influ
enced their choices of housing, friends, mates, and occupa
tions (McCroskey, 1977). Keeping this idea in mind, let us
now focus on the results that high CA has on a person's
economic life in business.
Effects of High Communication Apprehension
McCroskey (1977) states that high CA results negatively
on a person's academic, political, social, and economic life.
Much of this appears to be obvious: those who fear oral
communication are likely to avoid it whenever possible (Scott,
McCroskey, & Sheahan, 1978); "people who experience a high
level of communication apprehension will withdraw from and
seek to avoid communication whenever possible" (McCroskey,
1977, p. 87); people with high CA have little contact with
or influence upon others (McCroskey et al., 1975). If all
these statements are true, then let us consider how CA
affects individuals on their jobs.
Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Communication Apprehension
Now that both job satisfaction and communication appre
hension have been overviewed, it is necessary to examine
possible relationships between the two constructs. Specif
ically, is CA a contributing factor to job satisfaction?
Several studies conducted suggest that there is, indeed,
a relationship between the constructs. Porter and Kaufman
(1959), using the Decision Making Approach (DMA) scale which
differentiates between the self perception of top and middle
management, report that managers who score high on the DMA
show a significantly higher amount of verbal interaction
than those whose scores are lower. In an extension of their
study, Eran (1966) concludes that managers who score higher
on the DMA are, additionally, more satisfied with their
jobs. Conversely, those who have low scores are less satis
fied and feel they fulfill the requirements of the job, but
some of the job requirements are incongruent with their self
perceptions. Some of the personality-trait variables Eran
(1966) found to account for the variation in attitudes of
managers include forcefulness, imagination, independence,
decisiveness, and self-confidence. Because managers who
scored higher on the DMA are more satisfied with their jobs
10
and show a significantly higher amount of verbal interaction,
it is reasonable to assume that these same managers would
have lower levels of CA.
Hackman and Lawler (1971) stress the importance of com
bining demands and opportunities of jobs with the personal
needs and goals of employees. They feel this can best be
accomplished through job redesign, or by fitting people to
jobs and continually checking that fit as both the organi
zation and the people change over time. Some of these needs
and goals employees have concern their skills (O'Brien,
1980; O'Brien 6e Stevens, 1981; Slocum & Misshauk, 1970).
Employees who are allowed to use their skills are more sat
isfied, and highly skilled employees feel their jobs are
more important and desire more freedom to perform their
tasks than do unskilled employees. When allowed to make
more decisions, highly skilled workers have increased job
satisfaction while this opportunity has little impact on the
satisfaction of unskilled workers (Slocum & Misshauk, 1970).
People who have low levels of CA could conceivably consider
one of their skills to be a communication skill. If they
were placed in a position where this skill could not be
used sufficiently, there is reason to believe that their
level of job satisfaction would be reduced.
Research has shown that levels of CA affect many dif
ferent aspects of a person's life and work environment,
including effectiveness, task attraction, attitudes, job
11
placement, satisfaction, and receiver apprehension. Frei-
muth (1976, p. 296) concluded that levels of CA in the
source affects the receiver's comprehension of the message
as well as ratings of authoritativeness and speech effec
tiveness stating that "the more silence included in a one-
minute message, the lower its rating of speech effectiveness
and authoritativeness." Furthermore, people with high CA
experience more silence in their speech and receive lower
ratings on language facility, vocal characteristics, and
general effectiveness (Freimuth, 1976). Possibly because
people with high CA are perceived as being less authoritative,
McCroskey et al. (1975) reported that they are sometimes
thought to be less task attractive than are persons with low
CA. Additionally, people with high CA are more sensitive
to attitude differences with others and are much less attract
ed to those who have different attitudes. This lack of
attraction to co-workers could add to the dissatisfaction of
the job for a person with high CA.
All jobs require some amount of communication--whether
with subordinates, superior, peers, or customers. People
with high CA who are forced to interact with others are less
satisfied than are others (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979).
Falcione et al. (1977) state that supervisor satisfaction is
closely associated with perceived communication behavior
(such as listening and understanding), credibility, attrac
tiveness, and attitude homophily, and to a lesser extent
12
with oral CA and self-esteem. Additionally, employees with
high CA and/or low self-esteem are less likely to be satis
fied regardless of their supervisors' behaviors (Falcione
et al., 1977).
The level of CA will also affect a person's job place
ment and position. The person with high CA faces reduced
prospects for employment, retention, and advancement, and is
less likely to develop good interpersonal relationships with
employee peers (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979). Daly and
McCroskey (1975) discovered that people with high CA tend to
prefer occupations with perceived low communication require
ments and that those with low CA prefer jobs with perceived
high communication requirements. McCroskey and Richmond
(1979) contend that there are fewer individuals with high CA
in organizations than would be expected considering the num
ber found in the general population. One explanation for
this could be that people with high CA are discriminated
against in the hiring process, or even earlier in the inter
viewing process. Individuals with high CA may even be dis
criminated against for jobs which require little communica
tion and would be good positions for people with high CA.
Furthermore, McCroskey and Richmond (1979, pp. 59-60) state
that these individuals have few top positions within organi
zations, probably because the higher a position, the more
communication skills that are required. Most of them are
found in lower organizational levels "through a tacit but
13
usually unspoken agreement between them and their super
visors that that is where they belong." Scott et al. (1978)
state that people with high CA have less desire for advance
ment, are less likely to expect advancement, see themselves
as being in positions which require less communication, and
prefer jobs which have lower communication requirements.
Apparently people are able to accurately describe communi
cation requirements for various occupations regardless of
their apprehension levels, and their own level of CA is
strongly related to their choice of occupation (Daly &
McCroskey, 1975). A person's term of employment is also
affected by CA: Employees with low CA are shown to stay
with companies over 50 percent longer than those with high
CA (Scott et al., 1978). Perhaps as people with high CA are
expected to interact more with others on the job, they choose
to quit rather than face the fear of communicating.
All jobs require some amount of communication, and
McCroskey and Richmond (1979) speculate that people with high
CA who are forced to interact with people will be less sat
isfied than will others. Since all employees do not have
complete control over what jobs they take, and since job sat
isfaction may be determined in part by levels of communica
tion apprehension, and because levels of CA affect the job
position desired, then the following hypothesis may logically
be inferred:
14
H : Means of job satisfaction will vary for employees based on an interaction between levels of communication apprehension and perceived frequency of communication involved in their position such that high communication apprehensives with high frequency of communication will have lower job satisfaction than will high communication apprehensives with low frequency of communication, and low communication apprehensives with low frequency of communication will be less satisfied than will high communication apprehensives with low frequency of communication.
CHAPTER II
METHODS
The purpose of this chapter is fourfold. The first
section reports the sample size and composition, and the
procedure used to collect the data. Second, the question
naires and measurement used are presented. Third, the data
analysis is discussed, and finally, the results of the study
are reported.
Sample and Procedure
This study surveyed 480 non-faculty employees at Texas
Tech University. Questionnaires were mailed to employees
at their campus address on June 1, 1983, and returned ques
tionnaires were collected through July 1, 1983. All respon
ses were anon3niious. The original 488 returned questionnaires
represented 345 females, 135 males, and 8 which were unus
able because of unanswered questions. There were 1373
questionnaires mailed; therefore, the 480 questionnaires
yielded a 35% return rate. The sample represented 85 dif
ferent university departments, the age of subjects ranged
from 18 to 79 with a mean age of 36, and the number of years
of employment at the University ranged from 1 to 45 with a
mean longevity of 6 years. The types of occupations repre
sented in the sample varied V7idely, as to position in the
organization. Thus, lower level, middle supervisors, and
administration were all represented.
15
• 16
Questionnaires and Measurement
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured by a modified version of
the Job Description Index (JDI) (Smith et al., 1969), con
taining three items for each of five dimensions: satisfac
tion with work, pay, promotion, supervisor, and co-workers.
A seven-point Likert-type scale instead of the yes, ?, no
response was used to record responses to questions since a
Likert-type scale would yield a more accurate response.
(See Appendix A.) The items were chosen because of high
factor loadings in previous research (Falcione et al., 1977;
Richmond & McCroskey, 1979; Smith et al., 1969; Wheeless
et al., 1983), and were factor analyzed using oblique rota
tion in this investigation to verify their dimensional
structure. An eigenvalue of 1.0 or greater and the criter
ion that at least 3 items must load at .60 or higher on a
factor were used to determine the number of factors extract
ed. In order for an item to be considered a part of a fac
tor, it had to load at .40 or higher. Reliabilities were
computed to determine internal consistency of each factor
(Nunally, 1967).
Factor analysis of the JDI produced five factors, repre
senting each of the Smith et al. (1979) five dimensions.
Total variance accounted for was 82.921% with satisfaction
with work accounting for 54.603%, satisfaction with pay for
17
18.339%, satisfaction with promotion for 5.968%, satisfac
tion with supervisor for 2.688%, and satisfaction with co
workers for 1.323%. (See Table 1.) Reliabilities for each
dimension were .86, .80, .80, .71, atid .64, respectively.
For any given factor a score of 3 indicated the lowest
possible level of satisfaction, and a score of 21 indicated
the highest possible level of satisfaction. The absolute
mean for each factor would be a score of 12.
Communication Apprehension
Communication apprehension was measured with the 20
item Personal Report of Communication Apprehension--Organi
zation Form. Developed by Scott et al. (1978), the mean
score for this form in their studies was 50.05 with standard
deviation of 11.50. The reliability for this measure in
research conducted by Scott et al. was .91. Because the
anchor statements were reversed in the current survey, the
mean score was 100.11 with standard deviation of 18.09.
Inverting the scores, however, would yield a comparable
mean. Factor analysis of this instrument using the same
criterion stated for the JDI resulted in one factor, which
accounted for 53.60% variance. Reliability of the measure
for the current study was .92 which was similar to the
reliability for previous studies. A seven-point Likert-
type scale was used for this measure. (See Appendix B.)
n-ll
w PQ <
• H V^ i J cd
S c o O -H
cC cd 6 M-i U CO O 'H
CO Cd
u ^ H O
•-) . - I cd M C Q O M-i
o si u o
u o o Cd
H O 4-» O Cd
o o Cd
u o u o cd
PM
o •u o Cd
P4
LTl 0(T»r- i<fcocr>oNcn<t i—icjNCNcM •<l•c^^c^4vo•<l•vovoo^^o^vOI—^r^^>» i - I C N l O O O O i — l i — I O i - l f - l < f s £ ) v O
I I I I
o o m i o o N a > m r - i i H C N i c M > d - < l - o r ^ i ^ l o o m v o m i — i r - i o o o i — i i n < t r ^ c T N O O O O O O O O i — I v O r ^ v O r H r - I O
I I I I I I
o<J^oo<^cx5vomo^^ocx5r^oomoo^^ i - H r - l . — l i - l t - l t - I O O < t r ^ O O i — l O O O
t I I I I
^ ^ c o < t o ^ v o ^ x > < N o o r ^ o o m c J ^ I — i c o m r ^ v o v o c s i v l - O r H c j o c v j c o c M i n i r x J - c o i - l t - I O C 3 0 r ^ v O C S I i - < C N O O O O O O
I I i I I I I I I
« ^ v o r ^ r o r ^ c T N r ^ v O i — i o o r > - o v o < N Q C S j r - N i — I O r - « . O O C » v O C O < J - v D i - H v O v £ > * ^ C X j r ^ r ^ i — l O r - l r H C O i - ^ O i - H O r H i — l O
I I I I I I
c • H
Cd !=!
a CO cd
•p
<u
I CO
I - l
c o
o
o o cd
u o
CO CO O • f - l ' I - l
(U , i < i ^ CO u u • o o :s IS en
o O 'T3 t iO-rH
cd CO
•iH 0)
Cd C p.. p
4J
(1) • H o
M-l M-l
e (U
o cd >
Cd
u o
o
O CO •H cd
O I - l
g a. <u o O 4 - ) ^ }-l O -iH ^
O -P >^ CL CO CO cd CO CO
o M-l
CO
e x CO }-l - H
cd
>^'0 4J cd
4-) CO
o a. o
(U
o o }- l } - l o o
cd CO CO CO ^ ' H ' H - H
- > >
0) (U cu (X (X (X :3 ;3 ;3
o
o o
>
4J
Q) bO
• H . - I
CO i-\ (U <U 15
•H J-) O g C r - I Q) ' H CO
CD (U 0)
<u cd cd
cd CO CO
S ^ 5-1
o ^ ; i » i
o > ^ ^ CO I
cd o
o 15 I
o
C50 <N
CO
<N C50
CNJ
p L i O ^ - D O c n c n c n W C J U
r- l cd > c bO
• H
CO , - 1 CN ( N CO (y\
• • I - l Csl
CX)
LO 0 0 CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 ON
vx) m CM
0 0
0 0 O vO 1-4 cjN cr»
• • m 00
cr> cvi CO < f CO C3
CO CM
CO CO o o
m in
o C
18
19
For any given factor a score of 20 indicated the highest
possible level of communication apprehension, and a score of
140 indicated the lowest possible level of communication
apprehension. The absolute mean would be a score of 60.
Frequency of Communication
Frequency of communication for each position was deter
mined by a self-report measure completed by each subject
using the following questions:
1. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend talking on the phone with other employees or students?
2. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend talking face-to-face with other employees or students?
3. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend communicating with others using forms of personal ^communication (such as writing letters, memos, electronic devices such as computers and electronic mail)?
4. In an average working day, what percent of your time do you spend at tasks not requiring talking or communicating with others?
Answers from questions 1 through 4 were totaled, and the 53
totals which did not equal 100 were adjusted by dividing the
percent on each question by the total, then multiplying that
figure by 100 so that all percentages totaled 100. Frequency
of communication was then determined by summing answers from
questions 1 and 2. Thus, frequency of communication was
operationalized as interaction with other individuals.
20
Data Analysis
The design for this study was a 2x2 factorial design
with communication apprehension and frequency of communi
cation as the independent variables, and the five factors
of job satisfaction as dependent variables.
The two levels of CA were determined as high or low
based at one standard deviation from the mean and beyond.
Frequency of communication was determined by summing per
centages from questions 1 and 2 (see above) and using a med
ian split to determine high and low frequency of communica
tion. A median split for frequency of communication was
used rather than a standard deviation split as was used for
CA in order to retain power. Because of the self-report used
to measure frequency of communication, there was no feasible
way to compute reliability estimates on that instrument.
Verification that all totals equaled 100%, however, helped
assure reliability.
The dimensional structure of the factorial structure
of job satisfaction resulted in five variables. Therefore,
the data were analyzed by a 2x2 Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA), and alpha level was set at .05. Since
the hypothesis stated that job satisfaction will vary based
on an interaction between frequency of communication and
levels of CA such that high communication apprehensives who
have jobs which demand high frequency of communication will
21
be less satisfied than low communicative apprehensives who
have the same demand of frequency of communication, an inter
action effect was necessary to support the hypothesis. Fur
ther, cell means should clearly show that high communica
tion apprehensives in low frequency jobs are significantly
more satisfied than low communication apprehensives in the
same low frequency jobs.
Results
Results from this study were first obtained using MANOVA
which produced no significant interaction effects. Post hoc
studies were then completed which produced slightly modified
results. The following results were obtained.
Initial Analysis
When the five variables of job satisfaction were used
as the dependent variables, the MANOVA results indicated no
significant interaction between communication apprehension
and frequency of communication. (See Tables 2-7.)
A significant main effect for communication apprehension
was observed on the linear composite (V=.1179, F(5,153)=4.09,
p<:.01). Frequency of communication accounted for 127o vari
ance in job satisfaction. There was no significant main
effect for frequency of communication from the linear com
posite (V=.5423, F(5,153)=1.75, p>.05). Additionally, no
significant interaction effect was found for CA and frequency
of communication (V=.0203, F(5,153)=.63, p>.05). Therefore,
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations for all Subjects
22
Variable Mean S.D n
Satisfaction with workl
Satisfaction with pay"-
Satisfaction with promotionl
Satisfaction with supervisor^
Satisfaction with co-workersl
Frequency of communication^
Communication apprehension^
15.
10.
10,
15,
16,
49
100
5063
,5042
,2021
.6500
.1208
.6651
.1125
4.2774
4.8333
4.8436
4.0128
3.3273
24.0216
18.0949
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
Ihigh satisfaction=21; low satisfaction=3
^high frequency=100; low frequency=0
^high communication apprehension=20; low communication apprehens ion=140
TABLE 3
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Half Split on Frequency
of Communication
23
Low CA High CA
Low Frequency
High Frequency
X = 12.04
n = 28
iE = 10.57
n = 54
X = 8.46
n = 46
X = 9.06
n = 33
X = 9.81
n = 74
X = 10.00
n = 87
X = 11.07
n = 82
X = 8.71,
n = 79
Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).
24
TABLE 4
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Half Split on Frequency
of Communication
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 17.14
n = 28
X = 16.19
n = 54
X = 16.51,
n = 82
High CA
X = 14.50
n = 46
X = 13.30
n = 33
X = 14.00a
n = 79
X = 15.50
n = 74
X = 15.09
n = 87
Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).
TABLE 5
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Half Split on Frequency
of Communication
25
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 12.00
n = 28
5E = 10.85
n = 54
X = 11.24
n = 82
High CA
X = 10.63
n = 46
X = 8.76
n = 33
X = 9.85
n = 79
X = 11.15
n = 74
X = 10.06
n = 87
26
TABLE 6
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Half Split on Frequency
of Communication
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 17.00
n = 28
X = 15.17
n = 54
High CA
X = 15.72
n = 46
5E = 14.64
n = 33
X = 15.79
n = 74
X = 15.27
n = 87
X = 16.20
n = 82
X = 14.97
n = 79
TABLE 7
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Half Split on Frequency
of Communication
27
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA High CA
X = 16.43
n = 28
X = 15.96
n = 54
X = 16.28
n = 46
X = 15.55
n = 33
X = 16.34
n = 74
X = 15.80
n = 87
X = 16.12
n = 82
X = 15.97
n = 79
28
the hypothesis statement that there would be an interaction
effect between levels of communication apprehension and per
ceived frequency of communication failed to be supported.
Univariate F ratios were examined for each of the five
dependent variables. Communication apprehension produced
a significant main effect for both work (F^,a=13.85, p=.0003)^
(Ff^=2.40, p=.1236)2 (Fint=-03, p=.9640)3 and promotion (F^^=
8.82, p=.0035) (Ffr=.25, p=.6213) (Fint=l-57, p=.2115) indi
cating that communication apprehension is a factor which
affects satisfaction with both work and promotion. Frequency
of communication produced a significant main effect for sat
isfaction with supervisor (Fca=-61, p=.4355) (Ffr=4.33, p=
.0391) (Fint"-^^' P=-5900) indicating that frequency of com
munication is a significant factor determining satisfaction
with supervisor. There was no significant difference, how
ever, for the dependent variables of satisfaction with pay
(Fca=3.24, p=.0737) (Ffr=3.59, p=.0601) (Fint=-20, p=.6519)
or co-workers (F^^=.08, %=.7817) (Ff^=1.21, p=.2723) (Fint=
.06, p=.8048). Examination of the means for each variable
indicated that high communication apprehensives had lower
job satisfaction than did low communication apprehensives
on each of the five dimensions, although the differences
•'-ca=communication apprehension
2fr=frequency of communication
3int=interaction
29
were only significant for satisfaction with work and promo
tion. Furthermore, subjects in the lower communication
frequency group were more satisfied than those in the high
communication frequency group on every dimension except
satisfaction with promotion. Again, however, the differ
ences were significant only for satisfaction with super
visor .
Post Hoc Analysis
Although no significant interaction effects were found
in the original study, further experimentation was performed
to determine if there were, in fact, significant results,
including a single factor analysis and a third split on
frequency of communication rather than a median split. For
the single factor solution, nine items were extracted. Pri
mary loadings on the unrotated factor matrix which were .40
or above were used. This yielded all nine items constitu
ting the dimensions of satisfaction with work, pay and pro
motion, and excluded all items from the dimensions of super
visor and co-workers. Using the one-factor solution, an
analysis of variance was conducted with CA and frequency of
communication as the independent variables. As before, CA
yielded a significant main effect (Fca=l^-78, p=.0002) (Ff;c=
3.18, p=.0767) (Fint=-ll' p=.7444). Examination of the
means indicated that high communication apprehensives were
less satisfied than low communication apprehensives.
30
A second post hoc analysis was conducted eliminating
the middle one-third of the subjects on the communication
frequency variable. The rationale for this procedure was
that the middle group could be viewed as "normal" and this
analysis sought to examine the more extreme cases. The
results of the ANOVA yielded isomorphic results for commun
ication apprehension (F^^=13.13, p=.0004) (Ff^=2.91, p=
.0906) ( ^ -=.67, p=.4151). When the same third split was
used in the MANOVA, however, a significant interaction
effect was found for the dependent variable satisfaction
with promotion (Fca=6.73, p=.0107) (Ff-t.= .38, p=.5394) (Fint=
4.19, P-.0430). This indicates that the combination between
CA and frequency of communication could affect employees'
satisfaction with promotion.
An examination of the cell means indicates that there
is a significant interaction (p=.0012) stating that low
communication apprehensives with low frequency of communi
cation are more satisfied with promotion than are high com
munication apprehensives with low frequency of communication
Additionally approaching significance are means indicating
that low communication apprehensives with low frequency of
communication are more satisfied than are both high communi
cation apprehensives and low communication apprehensives
with high frequency of communication (p=.0635 and .0671,
respectively). (See Tables 8-12.)
31
TABLE 8
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Promotion Using Third Split on Frequency
of Communication
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 13.00
n = 21
X = 10.38
n = 21
High CA
X = 8.30
n = 37
1
X = 8.46
n = 24
1
X = 11.69a
n = 42
X = 8.38,
n = 61
X = 10.00
n = 58
X = 9.36
n = 45
Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).
32
TABLE 9
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Work Using Third Split on Frequency
of Communication
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 17.43
n = 21 1
X = 15.90
n = 21
High CA -
X = 14.27
n = 37
X = 13.92
n = 24
X = 15.41
n = 58
X = 14.84
n = 45
X = 16.67. X = 14.10,
n = 42 n = 61
Means with common subscripts are significantly different (p .05).
TABLE 10
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Pay Using Third Split on Frequency
of Communication
33
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 12.43
n = 21
X
n
10.38
21
X
n
11.41
42
High CA
X = 10.62
n = 37
X
n
10.00
24
X
n
10.31
61
X = 11.28
n = 58
X = 10.17
n = 45
34
TABLE 11
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Supervisor Using Third Split on Frequency
of Communication
Low Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 16.90
n = 21
X = 15.19
n = 21
High CA
X = 15.57
n = 37
X = 15.08
n = 24
X = 16.05
n = 58
X = 15.13
n = 45
X = 32.09
n = 42
X = 30.63
n = 61
35
TABLE 12
Cell Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers Using Third Split on Frequency
of Communication
L.OW
Frequency
High Frequency
Low CA
X = 16.43
n = 21
X = 16.05
n = 21
High CA
X = 16.38
n = 37
X = 15.54
n = 24
J
X = 16.40
n = 58
X = 15.78
n = 45
X = 16.24
n = 42
X = 15.96
n = 61
36
Although results of the post hoc study differed only
slightly from the original findings, it is possible that
more consideration should be taken when establishing cri
terion before analyzing the data.
CHAPTER III
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The final chapter of this thesis contains a discussion
of the results, problems which might have affected tha lack
of support for the hypothesis, and also incorporates ideas
for future research. The chapter ends with the conclusions
which may be drawn from this study.
Discussion
The results of this study both compare and contrast with
the key studies upon which it was built. Means and standard
deviations for CA scores'differed somewhat; Daly and McCroskey
(1975) surveyed 196 undergraduate students and found a mean
of 61.92 with standard deviation of 13.97. The study con
ducted by Scott et al. (1978) was more comparable with their
study showing a mean of 50.05 with standard deviation of
11.50 in a study consisting of 243 employees of the federal
government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Because
the anchoring statements for the current study were reversed
from the previous studies, the means of 100.11 with standard
deviation of 13.09 would make the results of this study com
parable with previous studies. The larger standard devia
tion, however, xvould indicate that the current study surveyed
more "normals" than did previous research.
Although Scott et al. (1978) surveyed employees rather
than students, they had approximately half female and half
37
38
male as compared to slightly more than one-fourth males and
three-fourth females represented in the current study. Scott
et al. (1978) found that high communication apprehensives
have less desire for advancement, are less likely to expect
promotion, and prefer jobs with lower communication require
ments. The current study supports the findings on promo
tion: Low communication apprehensives are more satisfied
with promotion than are high communication apprehensives.
The findings differ, however, concerning communication
requirements, suggesting that all employees were more satis
fied when the amount of communication for their jobs was con
sidered low.
Although the results of this study supported McCroskey
and Richmond's (1979) statement that people with high commun
ication apprehension with be less satisfied V7hen forced to
interact than will people with low communication apprehen
sion, the hypothesis that there would be an interaction
effect with both CA and frequency of communication failed
to be supported. High communication apprehensives were less
satisfied than were low communication apprehensives on all
dimensions: satisfaction with work, pay, promotion, super
visor, and co-workers. The lack of significance, however,
indicates that the effect may not be as strong as formerly
believed.
Some of the problems of this study concern the statis
tical methods used. The use of MANOVA requires many more
39
subjects, and using this method with insufficient numbers
can misrepresent the findings (Lawlis & Chatfield, 1974).
Perhaps with a larger sample size there would have been
enough extreme cases to produce significance. However, if
there are fewer high communication apprehensives in the work
force than would be expected (McCroskey & Richmond, 1979) ,
then the possibility of surveying a large enough sample to
fill those cells may be difficult. Perhaps it would be bene
ficial to survey larger groups, and purposefully include
those groups believed to be composed mainly of high communi
cation apprehensives, such as accountants.
The self-report measure of frequency of communication
also posed problems. With no feasible way to validate this
report or measure its reliability, the results reported
could have been less than accurate. It is possible that
high communication apprehensives over-estimate the amount
of time they must spend communicating, and, conversely, those
who are low communication apprehensives may underestimate
the amount of time they are able to communicate with others.
It would be difficult to develop a standardized instrument
to measure percentage of time spent communicating, but reli
ability could be tested by using the test-retest method, or
perhaps by observing a random sample of the subjects at the
work site and comparing observations with self-reports. This,
however, would mean that those subjects would lose their
anonymity, which could also bias the results of the remainder
nf ^hp auestionnaire.
40
Results concerning the main effect of CA on job satis
faction were not surprising, since Falcione et al. (1977) have
shown that job satisfaction is related to CA, and McCroskey
and Richmond (1979) have found high communication apprehen
sives to be less satisfied in general than low communication
apprehensives. It is surprising, however, that employees
who were considered to have low communication frequency
proved to be more satisfied than those with high communica
tion frequency on all job satisfaction dimensions except
promotion. Perhaps this finding indicates that there is
some other variable related to frequency of communication
and job satisfaction, such as stress. Likewise, the inter
action effect found between CA and frequency of communica
tion on satisfaction with promotion in the post hoc studies
would be reasonable. High communication apprehensives, par
ticularly, v/ould be concerned with the amount of communica
tion required of them if they were promoted to a job which
automatically demanded higher communication skills (McCroskey
oc Richmond, 1979) . Just why this interaction effect should
occur only with satisfaction of promotion, however, and not
with any of the other four variables, is questionable. Per
haps employees feel "safer" attributing lack of job satis
faction on a neutral topic such as promotion rather than on
more controversial things such as supervisor or co-workers.
Additionally, if the employees had any reservations about
their supervisors having access to the answers the employees
41
supplied, this could have made the employees hesitant to be
entirely honest in their answers.
Conclusions
Although the hypothesis statement that job satisfaction
would vary for employees based on an interaction between
levels of communication apprehension and perceived frequency
of communication failed to be supported by this study, sev
eral significant findings were evident.
The relationship between CA and job satisfaction was
definitely supported. Although there was no significant
interaction effect between CA and frequency of communica
tion, there was evidence to indicate that CA does affect
satisfaction x> ith work and promotion and that frequency of
communication affects satisfaction with supervisor. The
fact that post hoc studies using different operational defi
nitions of high and low frequency of communication did, in
fact, produce an interaction effect between CA and frequency
of communication on satisfaction with promotion warrants fur
ther study in that area.
Examination of the post hoc analysis concerning the
interaction effect of CA, frequency of communication and
promotion indicates that the most important variable is fre
quency of communication. In the significant interaction,
low communication apprehensives with low frequency of com
munication were more satisfied with promotion than were high
42
communication apprehensives with low frequency of communi
cation. Likewise, in the instances approaching significance,
low communication apprehensives with low frequency of com
munication were more satisfied than were both high communi
cation apprehensives and low communication apprehensives
with high frequency of communication. Apparently frequency
of communication may be a more important variable than is
CA.
Additionally, low communication apprehensives are more
satisfied with all dimensions of job satisfaction: work,
pay, promotion, supervisor, and co-workers, while those who
are low communication apprehensives and have low frequency
of communication are more satisfied than any other combina
tion on dimensions of job satisfaction. The results, how
ever, were insignificant.
Although only limited interaction effects were found
in this study, there still remains a clear relationship
between CA and job satisfaction. Perhaps future research
should concentrate on variables that do have an interaction
effect with CA and job satisfaction if, indeed, frequency of
communication does not. Specifically, what variables inter
act with CA to effect job satisfaction? Why are even low
communication apprehensives more satisfied with jobs that
require lower frequency of communication? Do low communi
cation apprehensives as well as high communication appre
hensives suffer from "communication overload?"
43
Alas, the mystery remains unsolved. Just what con
stitutes job satisfaction remains to allude us, but further
research in this realm should eventially find the answers.
44
LIST OF REFERENCES
Alexander, A. & Camden, C. Praise and organizational behavior. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis, 1981.
Barnowe, J.T., Mangione, T.W. oc Quinn, R.P. The relative importance of job facets as indicated by an empirically derived model of job satisfaction. In Survey Research Center, The 1969-1970 survey of working; conditions: Chronicles of an unfinished enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973.
Baum, J.F. & Youngblod, S.A. Impact of an organizational, control policy on absenteeism, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 688-694.
Caldwell, D.F. & O'Reilly, CA. Task perceptions and job satisfaction: A question of causality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, , 361-369.
Centers, R. & Bugental, D.E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 50, 193-197.
Clevenger, T.A., Jr. A synthesis of experimental research in stage fright. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1959, 45, 134-145.
Daly, J.A. & McCroskey, J.C. Occupational desirability and choice as a function of communication apprehension^ Journal of Counseling; Psychology, 1975, 2^, 309-313.
Day, R.C. & Hamblin, R.L. Some effects of close and punitive styles on supervision. American Journal ot boci-ology, 1964, 6^, 499-510.
Dunnette, M. , Campbell, J. & Jaastad, K Factors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 143-1/4.
Eran, M. Relationship between self-perceived P^^^^^^^j-^^ traits and job attitudes in middle management. Jour nal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 424-430.
45
Falcione, R.F., Daly, J.A. £c McCroskey, J.C. Job satisfaction as a function of employees' communication apprehension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their immediate supervisor. In B.D. Ruben (Ed.) Communication Year-Dook_J . New Brims wick, N.J.: Transaction, 1977.
Freimuth, V.S. The effects of communication apprehension on communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 1976, 2, 289-298.
Goldhaber, G.M., Yates, M.P., Porter, D.T. & Lesniak, R. Organizational communication: 1978. Human Communi-cation Research, 1978, 4, 76-95./
Gould, S.B. 6c Hawkins, B.L. Organizational career stage as a moderator of the satisfaction-performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 434-450. • ^ —
Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286. '
Katz, R. The influence of job longevity on employee reactions to task characteristics. Human Relations, 1978, n , 703-725.
Katz, R. Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 204-223. ""
Katzell, R.A., Barrett, R.S. & Parker, T.C. Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 65-72.
King, N. Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, M , 18-31.
Kornhauser, A. Mental health of the industrial worker: A Detroit study. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.
LaFollette, W.R. & Sims, H.P., Jr. Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 257-278.
Lawler, E.E., III & Porter, L.W. The effect of Performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 1967, ]_, 20-28.
46
Lawlis, G.F. & Chatfield, D. Multivariate approaches for the behavioral sciences: A brief text. Lubbock Texas: Texas Tech Press, 1974.
Locke, E.A. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1976.
Maher, R.R. & Piersol, D.T. Perceived clarity of individual job objectives and of group mission as correlates of organizational morale. Journal of Communication. 1970, 20, 125-133.
McCroskey, J.C. Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 269-277.
McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 1977, 4, 78-96.
McCroskey, J.C. Oral communication apprehension: A recon-ceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.) Communication yearbook 6. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication, 1982.
McCroskey, J.C, Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P. & Cox, B.C. The effects of communication apprehension on interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research, 1975, 2, 51-65.
McCroskey, J.C, Daly, J.A., Richmond, V.P. & Falcione, R.L. Studies of the relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human Communication Research, 1977, 3, 269-277.
McCroskey, J.C £c Richmond, V.P. The impact of communication apprehension on individuals in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 1979, 27, 55-61.
Nunally, J.C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
O'Brien, G.E. The centrality of skill-utilization for job design. In K. Duncan, M. Gruneberg, D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life. Winchester: John Wiley,
O'Brien, G.E. & Stevens, L. The relationship between perceived influence and job satisfaction among assembly line employees. Journal of Industrial Relations, 1981, 21, 33-48.
47
O'Reilly, C.A., III & Roberts, K.H. Individual differences m personality, position in the organization, and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 14, 144-150.
Paivo, A. Childrearing antecedents of audience sensitivity Child Development, 1964, 35 , 397-416.
Payne, R.L., Fineman, S. 6c Wall, T.D. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976. 16? 45-62. — —
Phillips, CM. Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker. Speech Monographs, 1968, 35 , 39-49.
Porter, L.W. 6c Kaufman, R.A. Relationships between a top-middle management self-description scale and behavior in a group situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1959, 43, 345-348.
Porter, L.W. 6c Mitchess, V.F. Comparative study of need satisfactions in military and business hierarchies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 5]^, 139-144.
Richmond, V.P. 6c McCroskey, J.C Management communication style, tolerance for disagreement and innovativeness as predictors of employee satisfaction: A comparison of single-factor, two-factor, and multiple-factor approaches. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3. New Brimswick, N.J.: Transaction, ly/y.
Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C 6: Davis, L.M. Individual differences among employees, management communication style, and employee satisfaction: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 1982, 8, 170-188.
Ronan, W.W. Individual and situational variables relating to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1970, 5^, 1-31. ~
Schneider, B. 6c Snyder, R. Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate. Journal ot Applied Psychology, 1975, , 318-328.
Scott, M.D., McCroskey, J.C 6c Sheahan, M.E_ _ ^ f ; ^ f communication apprehension. Journal of Communication, 1978, 28, 104-111.
48
Slocum, J.W., Jr. 6c Misshauk, M.J. Job satisfaction and productivity. Personnel Administration. 1970, 33, 52-58.
Smith, P.O., Kendall, L.M. 6c Hulin, CL. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago- Rand McNally 6c Co . , 1969. '
Spielberger, CD. (Ed.) Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.
Weaver, CN. Job satisfaction in the United States in the 1970s. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 364-367. —
Wheeless, V.E., Wheeless, L.R. 6c Howard, R.D. An analysis of the contribution of participative decision making and communication with supervisor as predictors of job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 1983, 18, 145-160.
Wnile, S.E. 6c Mitchell, T.R. Job enrichment versus social cues: A comparison and competitive test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 1-9.
Zimbardo, P.G. Shyness. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
APPENDICES
A. JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX
B. PERSONAL REPORT OF COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION--ORGANIZATION FORM
49
50
APPENDIX A: JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX
The following items ask you to indicate how satisfied you are with each aspect of your job listed below Write the appropriate number in the blank using the following scale:
l=Strongly disagree 5=Somewhat agree 2=Disagree 6=Agree 3=Somewhat disagree 7=Strongly agree 4=Neutral or uncertain
My supervisor is easy to please. My work is fascinating. It is easy to make enemies with my co-workers. There is good opportunity for advancement in my work My work is boring. My pay is good. My supervisor is polite. My co-workers are intelligent. My job is a dead end job. I am underpaid in my job. There is a good chance for promotion in my job. My supervisor is stubborn. My pay is barely enough to live on. My work gives me. a sense of accomplishment. My co-workers are slow.
51
APPENDIX B: PERSONAL REPORT OF COJ-IMUNICATION APPREHENSION--ORGANIZATION FORM
The following items ask you to indicate your feelings about communicating with other people. Using the scale of 1 through 7 below, indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement by writing the appropriate number in the blank:
l=Strongly disagree 5=Somewhat agree 2=Disagree 6=Agree 3=Somewhat disagree 7=Strongly agree 4=Neutral or uncertain
People can usually count on me to keep a conversation going. Conversing with people who hold positions of author-ity is something I really enjoy. I feel self-conscious when I am called upon to answer a question or give an opinion. I am basically an outgoing person. When I have to represent the university to another group I feel very tense and nervous. I am afraid to express myself in a group.
~~~~ When I'm with other people, I often have difficulty thinking of the right things to talk about. I enjoy fielding questions at a meeting. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations. I look forward to an opportunity to speak m public. In most situations, I generally know what to say to people. I enjoy talking to my subordinates. I talk less because I'm shy. I am fearful and tense all the while I am speaking before a group of people. Talking to my supervisor makes me nervous. T like to get involved in group discussions Conversing^with people who\old positions of authority r-anc;pc me to be fearful and tense. I en!oy rej?eslnting my organization to °ther groups. I took forward to interviewing people applying for a job as my subordinate. • •, ^ ,.„„-I consider myself to be the silent type.